Last Month, the Maui County Council Voted to Settle County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, a High-Profile CWA Suit
On September 20, 2019, the Maui County Council voted to settle County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, a high-profile case involving the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the case this November.
While the Council voted 5-4 to resolve the case, the litigation may not be over. Several council members, along with Maui County Mayor Mike Victorino, maintain that the county can’t formally dismiss the case without the Mayor’s approval. So far, Victorino has resisted settlement. If the settlement proceeds, Maui County will be required to pursue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the injection wells and invest approximately $2.5 million in wastewater reuse systems.
County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund
As discussed in greater detail in prior articles, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund revolves around whether the CWA regulates pollution that reaches surface water via groundwater. The federal courts of appeals are deeply divided on the question.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted an expansive interpretation of the CWA’s reach. It held that that the CWA does not require that the point source itself convey the pollutants directly into the navigable water. According to the Ninth Circuit, the County of Maui was liable under the CWA because (1) the County discharged pollutants from a point source; (2) the pollutants were fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water such that the discharge was the functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water; and (3) the pollutants reached navigable waters at greater than de minimis levels.
“At bottom, this case is about preventing the County from doing indirectly that which it cannot do directly. The County could not under the CWA build an ocean outfall to dispose of pollutants directly into the Pacific Ocean without an NPDES permit,” the Ninth Circuit explained. “It cannot do so indirectly either to avoid CWA liability. To hold otherwise would make a mockery of the CWA’s prohibitions.”
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is at odds with the Sixth Circuit. In Clean Water Act Network v. Tenn. Valley Auth. and Kentucky Waterways All. v. Kentucky Utils. Co., the appeals court declined to impose liability for indirect discharges of pollution to federally protected water via groundwater. That case, which was on the Supreme Court’s docket, also settled.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the CWA is also narrow. According to EPA guidance issued in April, discharges of pollutants to groundwater are “categorically excluded” from the CWA’s permitting requirements. “Informed by [public] comments and based on a holistic analysis of the statute, its text, structure, and legislative history, the Agency concludes that the best, if not the only, reading of the CWA is that Congress intentionally chose to exclude all releases of pollutants to groundwaters from the NPDES program, even where pollutants are conveyed to jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater,” the EPA wrote.
Another CWA Case for the Supreme Court
Assuming that the Maui County case is settled, the U.S. Supreme Court may agree to take up yet another case involving the CWA. In Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP v. Upstate Forever, the Fourth Circuit adopted similar reasoning, holding that the discharge of a pollutant that moves through groundwater before reaching navigable waters may constitute a discharge of a pollutant, within the meaning of the CWA. However, it further held that a plaintiff must allege a direct hydrological connection between groundwater and navigable waters in order to state a claim under the CWA for a discharge of a pollutant that passes through groundwater.
If the Court agrees to hear Kinder Morgan, the justices will again be in the position to resolve the circuit split over the scope of the CWA. Given the potential ramifications for the regulated community, the attorneys of the Scarinci Hollenbeck Environmental Law Group will continue to closely monitor the cases, and we encourage readers to check back for updates.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
